By Sylvester Samai
The question of whether President Julius Maada Bio of Sierra Leone is a dictator or a democrat is a subject of intense debate, both within and outside of the country. His leadership has been scrutinized since he first rose to prominence as a young soldier and head of state in 1996, and later when he was elected president in 2018. His tenure has been marked by ambitious reforms, most notably the Free Quality Education initiative, but also by accusations of authoritarianism, corruption, and human rights violations.
To answer the question of whether Bio is a dictator or a democrat, it is necessary to critically analyze his leadership style, his policies, his relationship with democratic institutions, and how his government has handled dissent. The dichotomy between dictatorship and democracy is not always clear-cut, and Bio’s administration can be seen as embodying elements of both.
Before delving into his current presidency, it is crucial to acknowledge Bio’s background. He first came to power as part of the National Provisional Ruling Council (NPRC), a military junta that overthrew the democratically elected government of Joseph Saidu Momoh in 1992. While Bio’s role in ending the Sierra Leonean Civil War and paving the way for a return to civilian rule in 1996 is often lauded, his involvement in military governance left an indelible mark on his political persona.
Military rule, by its very nature, leans towards authoritarianism. The NPRC’s regime was accused of human rights abuses and undemocratic practices. Even though Bio handed over power to a democratically elected government in 1996, his past as a soldier and junta leader continues to shape perceptions of his leadership today.
When Bio was elected as president in 2018, he presented himself as a reformist democrat. His campaign promised to tackle corruption, promote human rights, and improve the country’s socio-economic conditions. Bio’s commitment to the rule of law and democratic governance was most prominently reflected in his Free Quality Education program, which aimed to provide free education to every Sierra Leonean child. This policy, though met with challenges, was viewed as an attempt to address the historical inequalities that had long plagued Sierra Leonean society.
Bio’s government also pushed through other reforms, such as the repeal of the 1965 seditious libel law, which had been used by previous regimes to suppress press freedom. This move was hailed as a major victory for democracy and freedom of speech in Sierra Leone, giving journalists more freedom to critique the government without fear of retribution. Under his administration, Sierra Leone experienced a marked improvement in global rankings on press freedom.
Another democratic highlight of Bio’s presidency was his commitment to institutional reform. His government took steps to strengthen anti-corruption measures, including appointing a vigorous Anti-Corruption Commissioner, Francis Ben Kaifala. Under Kaifala’s leadership, the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) made significant progress in recovering allegedly siphoned public funds and prosecuting high-profile cases of corruption. The Anti-Corruption drive was seen as a bold attempt to strengthen democratic institutions and ensure accountability.
However, the very same anti-corruption campaign that bolstered Bio’s democratic credentials has also been criticized for selectively targeting opposition figures. Many accuse Bio of using the ACC as a tool to weaken political rivals, particularly members of the opposition All People’s Congress (APC). These accusations of selective justice have cast doubt on Bio’s commitment to genuine democratic reforms. In a functioning democracy, institutions like the ACC must operate independently and impartially, but critics argue that under Bio’s leadership, such institutions are increasingly being politicized.
Bio’s handling of dissent has also raised alarms about authoritarian tendencies. His government has been accused of suppressing opposition voices, using state security apparatus to intimidate political opponents, and curtailing civil liberties. For example, during the 2019 protests in Makeni over the relocation of a power generator, security forces opened fire on protesters, resulting in several deaths. The heavy-handed response was widely condemned both domestically and internationally, with many citing it as an example of Bio’s authoritarian instincts.
Additionally, the 2023 general elections, which saw Bio win a second term, were marred by allegations of electoral fraud, voter suppression, and political violence. The APC, the main opposition party, refused to accept the results, accusing the government of rigging the elections. International observers from bodies like the European Union also expressed concerns about the transparency of the electoral process. Such irregularities raise concerns about the erosion of democratic processes under Bio’s leadership.
One of the hallmarks of authoritarianism is the centralization of power in the executive branch, and Bio’s government has been accused of consolidating power at the expense of other democratic institutions. There have been instances where the judiciary and legislature appeared to be sidelined in favor of presidential decrees and executive orders. In a vibrant democracy, the separation of powers ensures checks and balances, but under Bio, critics argue that this separation is increasingly becoming blurred.
Moreover, Bio’s reliance on a close circle of loyalists has raised concerns about nepotism and cronyism within his administration. This centralization of power, combined with the perceived marginalization of opposition figures, has led some to conclude that Bio is steering Sierra Leone towards authoritarianism.
First Lady Fatima Bio has been a highly visible figure during Bio’s presidency, spearheading various social initiatives, most notably the “Hands off Our Girls” campaign aimed at protecting girls from sexual violence. While her involvement in these initiatives is commendable, there have been concerns about her increasing influence on governance. Critics argue that the First Lady wields an outsized influence over government affairs, often making decisions that fall outside her constitutional role.
In some cases, Fatima Bio’s public statements and actions have been seen as an extension of Bio’s authoritarian tendencies. For instance, her inflammatory rhetoric against political opponents has contributed to the growing polarization of Sierra Leonean politics. The First Lady’s involvement in governance raises questions about the accountability and transparency of Bio’s administration, and whether his government is becoming more autocratic.
Despite the repeal of the seditious libel law, Bio’s relationship with the media has been complicated. While journalists now enjoy greater freedom to criticize the government, there have been reports of harassment, intimidation, and threats against media professionals who are perceived to be overly critical of the regime. This has led to a chilling effect on press freedom, with some media outlets practicing self-censorship to avoid falling afoul of the government.
The role of a free press is critical in any democracy, serving as a watchdog against government excesses and providing the public with information necessary for informed decision-making. Bio’s mixed record on press freedom raises questions about the true extent of his democratic commitments.
On the international stage, Bio has positioned himself as a democratic leader committed to good governance and sustainable development. He has cultivated strong relationships with global partners, particularly in the areas of education and healthcare. Bio’s government has attracted significant international aid and investment, particularly from the European Union, the United Nations, and China.
However, Bio’s cozy relationship with China has also raised eyebrows, given China’s own authoritarian governance model. Some critics argue that Bio is taking cues from Beijing, adopting a model of governance that emphasizes economic development while restricting political freedoms. His administration’s alleged crackdown on political opponents and suppression of dissent are seen as signs of authoritarian creep.
In the final analysis, the question of whether Bio is a dictator or a democrat does not have a simple answer. He exhibits traits of both. On one hand, he has implemented progressive reforms, promoted education, and taken steps to improve governance through anti-corruption initiatives. On the other hand, his government has been accused of suppressing opposition voices, centralizing power, and undermining democratic institutions.
Ultimately, the legacy of Bio’s presidency will depend on how he navigates the tension between democratic governance and authoritarian impulses in the remaining years of his tenure. If Bio can strengthen Sierra Leone’s democratic institutions, promote political pluralism, and ensure free and fair elections, he could cement his reputation as a democrat. But if his government continues down the path of repression and centralization of power, history may remember him more as an authoritarian than a reformist.
As former U.S. President Thomas Jefferson once said, “The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.” It is up to the people of Sierra Leone, civil society, and the international community to remain vigilant and hold their leaders accountable to the democratic ideals they espouse.